Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TamerVirus]

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Naturegirl1999]

REEEEEEEEEEEEE

R*1 E*13
R is the 18th letter of the alphabet
E is the 5th letter of the alphabet
5*13=65
65+18=83
83/26= 3.19230769231
Which rounds to 3
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet
So this can be translated to C
Or 8 and 3 which can translate to HC
Fun with numbers and letters!

[CABL]

I think we need to dig out that short-lived Language thread from its grave; I enjoyed that thread, but it didn't last long enough.

[Naturegirl1999]

What language thread? What page is it on?
This video explains why 20 million trees planted won’t do much against climate change
To be clear, what I’m saying here is we need to do more, not thst we shouldn’t do anything

To avoid double posting
I wonder if some day we could genetically engineer bacteria or fungi thst can break down some of the metals used in say, earrings or necklaces so thst they don’t fill up landfills

[dragdeler]

-

[Naturegirl1999]

Thst sounds like a plan, what’s with the smiley face? This implies something could go wrong, what is it thst could go wrong?

[Reelya]

Google algal blooms.

[Naturegirl1999]

Oh
What if we fill a container with carbon dioxide, and heated up the container to the point where the bonds break, and it the inside of the container had something to catch the carbon while the oxygen is released

[Bumber]

Oh
What if we fill a container with carbon dioxide, and heated up the container to the point where the bonds break, and it the inside of the container had something to catch the carbon while the oxygen is released

How big a container (or how many)? What do you intend to use as a heat source?

Sounds less practical than the trees, considering you have to build them. You could end up producing more CO2 than you capture.

[Reelya]

Oh
What if we fill a container with carbon dioxide, and heated up the container to the point where the bonds break, and it the inside of the container had something to catch the carbon while the oxygen is released

The clear problem is the bit where you said heated up the container to the point where the bonds break. Exactly how much energy do you think that would need? Where is that energy coming from? Sure, you can totally split carbon from oxygen. That's not the problem. The problem is that the various means to do so are expensive or require a lot of energy (which you'd have to get from burning fossil fuels or similar).

The point is to come up with something that's cheap and doesn't require us to pump energy into it.

One example of a decent proposal is putting iron into the ocean. Iron is the specific bottle-neck for microbe growth in the ocean, so if you add iron then other materials, including carbon dioxide, can be utilized.

Think of it this way: Imagine you have a lot of frankfurters, but you have a limited amount of buns, and you want to make as many hotdogs as possible, and someone suggests getting more frankfurters as the solution. clearly, this won't solve the problem because it's the buns that are the bottleneck, not the frankfurters. Since you have excess frankfurters, then buying more buns is the solution, since it allows you to make extra hot-dogs cheaply since it allows you to better utilize something you already have.

Similarly, engineering "better algae" is useless, since there just isn't enough available iron to grow more algae. Adding iron filings to seawater is thus a cheap way to increase how much algae can grow, and thus how much CO2 is absorbed. They are working on this.

[Ulfarr]

I'm not sure if it is just me misunderstanding your posts but I have the impression that you are focusing on CO2 a bit too much. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and it isn't even the most dangerous of the bunch. It is however the one scientists/engineers are using as a baseline unit to compare the effects of other gases and as such it gets the most exposure. To give an example 1 ton of R-22 (an once popular refrigerant among other uses) is equvalent to about 1800 tons of CO2. With that in mind I don't think there is enough merit in developing a method that only serves to break down CO2.

To avoid double posting
I wonder if some day we could genetically engineer bacteria or fungi thst can break down some of the metals used in say, earrings or necklaces so thst they don’t fill up landfills

We already do something like that but it's mainly used for extracting metals from their ores but as far as I know it hasn't been used in recycling yet. Granted I don't think it would ever be used for recycling earrings, neclaces or any other such items, these are already valuable enough to either not end up in a landfill in the first place or are already recycled using more conventional methods.

If you are interested in more info on the subject the general principle is known as biohydrometallurgy and the most commonly used bacteria are Thiobacillus ferrooxidans, Thiobacillus thiooxidans, Leptospirillum ferrooxidans and Sulfolobus acidocaldarius.

[Naturegirl1999]

Oh
What if we fill a container with carbon dioxide, and heated up the container to the point where the bonds break, and it the inside of the container had something to catch the carbon while the oxygen is released

The clear problem is the bit where you said heated up the container to the point where the bonds break. Exactly how much energy do you think that would need? Where is that energy coming from? Sure, you can totally split carbon from oxygen. That's not the problem. The problem is that the various means to do so are expensive or require a lot of energy (which you'd have to get from burning fossil fuels or similar).

The point is to come up with something that's cheap and doesn't require us to pump energy into it.

One example of a decent proposal is putting iron into the ocean. Iron is the specific bottle-neck for microbe growth in the ocean, so if you add iron then other materials, including carbon dioxide, can be utilized.

Think of it this way: Imagine you have a lot of frankfurters, but you have a limited amount of buns, and you want to make as many hotdogs as possible, and someone suggests getting more frankfurters as the solution. clearly, this won't solve the problem because it's the buns that are the bottleneck, not the frankfurters. Since you have excess frankfurters, then buying more buns is the solution, since it allows you to make extra hot-dogs cheaply since it allows you to better utilize something you already have.

Similarly, engineering "better algae" is useless, since there just isn't enough available iron to grow more algae. Adding iron filings to seawater is thus a cheap way to increase how much algae can grow, and thus how much CO2 is absorbed. They are working on this.

I'm not sure if it is just me misunderstanding your posts but I have the impression that you are focusing on CO2 a bit too much. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and it isn't even the most dangerous of the bunch. It is however the one scientists/engineers are using as a baseline unit to compare the effects of other gases and as such it gets the most exposure. To give an example 1 ton of R-22 (an once popular refrigerant among other uses) is equvalent to about 1800 tons of CO2. With that in mind I don't think there is enough merit in developing a method that only serves to break down CO2.

To avoid double posting
I wonder if some day we could genetically engineer bacteria or fungi thst can break down some of the metals used in say, earrings or necklaces so thst they don’t fill up landfills

We already do something like that but it's mainly used for extracting metals from their ores but as far as I know it hasn't been used in recycling yet. Granted I don't think it would ever be used for recycling earrings, neclaces or any other such items, these are already valuable enough to either not end up in a landfill in the first place or are already recycled using more conventional methods.

If you are interested in more info on the subject the general principle is known as biohydrometallurgy and the most commonly used bacteria are Thiobacillus ferrooxidans, Thiobacillus thiooxidans, Leptospirillum ferrooxidans and Sulfolobus acidocaldarius.

Thank you both for enlightening me

[dragdeler]

-

[Naturegirl1999]

What do the thicknesses in the graph represent?

[Ulfarr]

Image search is your friend NG   

The thickness of each fertilizer band is the relative magnitude for which that element can be absorbed through the root tissue of the plant. When looking at the nitrogen band the thickest region of this element is between the bounds of roughly 6 and 8. If nitrogen is available in solution and the Ph is within this optimal range of 6 – 8, then the nitrogen uptake should be optimal....